| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Gospel Puzzles?; [Revised Catholic Edition] | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. April 2007, 22:25 (1,414 Views) | |
| PJD | Monday, 2. August 2010, 20:58 Post #46 |
|
"but I think there is something to be found in these ramblings" Yes, so do I Gerry. I don't think that we are really that far away from each other. Frequently I tend to put my thoughts rather badly. However Clare has above, in my opinion , saved us both from an unprofitable disagreement. Let's be frank Gerry. Where in the Catholic papers, Bishops documents, any forum that I know of apart from this, will you find such subjects, not only mentioned and discussed, but also in possession of a membership that contributes - each and every one here! - fully and as far as possibly as best they can, and regularly come up with some contribution, encompassing differing expertises in one humble way or another etc. etc? There are many I am sure who do not know of us here (that we can't help of course), and who would not find these ramblings suitable to their taste - but equally there are many who would most certainly I think be of the opposite opinion. It is true that God can use direct intervention; but I have always understood that that is rare and He usually acts through His creatures (but sorry can't provide you with a relevant quote). What do you think; or do you think you might think afresh? (smile) There is nothing new under the sun? - dunno if that's wise man or whoever - but you will (another smile) PJD |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 2. August 2010, 21:38 Post #47 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Ecclesiastes 1:10. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 3. August 2010, 10:24 Post #48 |
|
We are not that far away from each other except for disagreement over sovreignty. I say, I think in agreement with OsB, that each is sovreign in its own field. You and Clare claim sovereignty of theology over science. Which I dispute. And I think 2,000 years of tehology have provided ample evidence of the foolishness of theologians claiming sovereignty over science. And some of the examples are scandalous in the Catholic use of the term. Science deals with the material. Theology deals with the spiritual. It doesnt happen very often but when science and theology are in disagreement over an issue in Nature science will win. When science and theology are in disagreement over an issue in the spiritual realm theology will be more convincing (unfortunately I need to water down the word win because theology has many different theologies). Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 3. August 2010, 10:40 Post #49 |
![]()
Administrator
|
It is for theologians to interpret the moral use of science. It seems to me that it is the same old story, clerics taking upon themselves roles for which others are better equipped. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 3. August 2010, 10:41 Post #50 |
|
Now, Augustine did say that miracles were natural events for which we had, as yet, no explanation. This was wise in that such a statement allowed science to progress without necessarily abolishing faith. However, Austine was prone to changing his mind (an excellent trait methinks) and I dont know if he changed or developed this attitude later on. For myself I accept it as partly true. But I still consider a miracle to be the direct intervention of God. Otherwise it is not a miracle but simply a natural occurrence. For me a miracle is something Supernatural, i.e. something above Nature - beyond Nature. To say that God does not do these things would tend towards Deism. And I note you accept they happen sometimes so we are only considering frequency. Now part of my thinking is that Creation is not a done deal. Creation has not been completed. Creation is something that is happening now and is continuing. So if God intervenes He is intervening in a work-in-progress. Its still part of creation. Also we say that God is present, involved and in relationship - so he must be intervening (otherwise we would have a deist God). Another approach, which I particularly like, is the eschatological one. In which a miracle is "Heaven invading Earth". That is to say that The way something is meant to be when time comes to an end (i.e. when creation is completed) breaks through into the present. In this sense the miracle is "Natural" i.e. they way God intends eternity to be and the way it was before the fall. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 3. August 2010, 10:43 Post #51 |
|
Yes, exactly, Rose. Edited by Gerard, Tuesday, 3. August 2010, 10:55.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Tuesday, 3. August 2010, 19:36 Post #52 |
|
"Another approach, which I particularly like, is the eschatological one. In which a miracle is "Heaven invading Earth"." Yes Gerry; it happens during every Mass. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 3. August 2010, 23:00 Post #53 |
|
That's from PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS the 1893 Encyclical by Pope Leo XIII so it precedes Pius X let alone Vatican II so it can hardly be dismised as that new fangled, 20th/21st century thinking that has done so much damage to the Church . |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 09:38 Post #54 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
St Augustine agrees with me and PJD. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 09:42 Post #55 |
|
Not Quite Clare. You believe in an earth-centric solar system because thats what you think scripture says. St Augustine says not to do that. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 09:48 Post #56 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
I said that St Augustine agrees with me about the sovereignty of theology over science. I repeat:
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 09:52 Post #57 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Do you think St Augustine was a heliocentrist, Gerry? |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 10:05 Post #58 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
St Augustine seemed to be under the impression that Scripture says the universe is geocentric:
More from the Fathers on ScriptureCatholic. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 10:40 Post #59 |
|
P.S. The Scripture quotes in Clare's post above are all taken out of context. They come from a Fundamentalist website whic, though claiming to be Catholic says things like this:
Which, of course, is not the Catholic teaching. Gerry Edited by Gerard, Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 11:18.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 19:36 Post #60 |
|
Clare, like all fundamentalists, is ever eager to take isolated quotations to support her ideas which have not been supported by the Church for a very long time - if, indeed, they ever were. In regard to geocentrism, Augustine was simply going along with the accepted scientific opinion of his day - in so far as the term 'scientific' can be applied to those days. He repeatedly disclaimed any final conclusion - as Pope Leo reminded us in the passage from PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS quoted earlier, "St. Augustine himself confessed that [in regard to Holy Scripture] there was more that he did not know, than that he knew - yet Clare ignores his repeated warnings of the dangers of holding any fixed position about these matters and she tries to present his qualified acceptance of general scientific opinion at that time to be some sort of support for her eccentric idea that Galileo and all scientists since have got things wrong and that the Church has been equally wrong in accepting their findings. I always thought that sort of thinking and disingenuous argument to be confined to Protestant fundamentalists, particularly in the USA Bible Belt, but through Clare I have learnt that there is a very obscure element in the Catholic Church that prefer this sort of nonsense and, despite the fact that not one respected theologian in the Church agrees with them, choose to reject the position that the Church has consistently taken for at least 1500 years, and present themselves as having some sort of 'real truth'. She usually tries to get off the hook by blaming the successors of Pope Pius X for everything, I'm waiting patiently for her justification of why she rejects the words of Pope Leo XII. Edited by Mairtin, Wednesday, 4. August 2010, 19:39.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:54 PM Jul 11